Can you stop it in time?
Intervention Readiness is the ability of an organisation to detect, escalate, decide and intervene before harm becomes irreversible. AGDA™ is Intervene's proprietary assessment of it.
Two starting points: an Intervention Readiness Review, or a full AGDA™ Assessment of one named system through a defined pathway and a specified intervention scenario.
- Detect
- Escalate
- Decide
- Intervene
Three situations that bring people here.
- A consequential deployment
You are about to depend on something you cannot easily reverse.
Approval is close, the system will act without a human confirming each decision, and nobody has established how quickly it could be stopped.
- Board or regulator scrutiny
Someone has asked for evidence, not assurance.
An audit committee, a supervisor or a risk committee wants to see that oversight works. Policies and control coverage do not answer the question they asked.
- Untested arrangements
The arrangements exist. Nobody has run them under pressure.
Escalation routes, halt authority and named owners are documented. Whether they hold at 3am, during a change freeze, or when the primary contact is unavailable is a separate question.
Documented responsibilities alone do not establish whether the people named can intervene in time. The assessment examines whether they can.
Detection works. Authority does not.
A constructed illustration of a full AGDA™ Assessment finding. It describes no real organisation, uses no client data, and is not an issued assessment or a verified outcome.
- System
- CRED-MOD-04, a retail credit decisioning model. Automated approve, decline or refer decisions; the question concerns the auto-decline pathway.
- Scenario
- A macro shock coincides with model drift and creates a need to stop or redirect the affected pathway.
What prevents intervention in this example.
Assumed window about six hours, held as a scenario assumption. Each stage below is compared with that window on its own.
- 01 Detect ~12 min Within the window Drift identified above threshold.
- 02 Escalate 4 to 96 hours May consume or exceed the window To reach a person with authority to halt.
- 03 Decide ≥ 7 days Exceeds the window on its own To obtain the quorum that person needs. No out-of-cycle route.
- 04 Intervene Not assessed Preceding delay already exceeds the window The source assumes about six minutes to propagate a halt if instructed; no duration is assessed here, and decisions already made are reprocessed next day.
Decisive constraint in this example Authority, not detection. The route to a person with authority may itself exceed the window, and the quorum that person needs exceeds it on its own. Faster detection cannot change that. Naming this constraint does not show that the other stages are adequate.
Constructed illustration, not a client result, an issued assessment or a verified outcome. Intervals are separate illustrative facts, not to scale and not added together; their start points, end points and any overlap have not been established, and no total response time is computed.
- Decision the finding supports
- Whether the auto-decline pathway can keep operating under its present authority arrangements, and what has to change before the organisation relies on it: who may authorise a halt, how that person is reached out of hours, and how the route is exercised before it is needed.
- Assumptions and limits
- One pathway and one scenario. Nothing here is a conclusion about any institution, other systems or legal conformity.
Read the full constructed sample.
What a full AGDA™ Assessment returns.
Each stage is assessed against evidence. The weakest stage constrains the chain, and the assessment names it. A full Assessment returns one of three states; the Review does not produce a verdict.
- Before impact
The chain completes in time under the assessed conditions.
- At risk
The chain completes, but within a margin that ordinary operational pressure can erode.
- After impact
The chain does not complete in time. Intervention lands after the consequence.
Two starting points. Neither is a prerequisite for the other.
Which route fits depends on how defined the system, pathway and scenario already are, and what evidence you can put in front of an assessor.
- Route A · Preliminary Intervention Readiness Review
- Appropriate when
- You need to establish whether this one system carries a material intervention question, and the proposed scope or evidence position needs clarifying before a full assessment is scoped.
- What you receive
- An executive review of the question, the preliminary chain, the evidence position and a scoped recommendation.
- Executive review: what to assess and why
- Evidence and access position
- Scoped recommendation
- Boundary
- Preliminary chain mapping only. The Review does not include the AGDA™ verdict, the SEDI findings or signed SEDI result records.
- Indicative fee
- £20,000 to £35,000 + VAT
- Route B · Full assessment AGDA™ Assessment
- Appropriate when
- The named system, pathway and scenario are defined and relevant evidence access is available.
- What you receive
- The full assessment package: an Intervention Readiness verdict with its basis and limitations, and what has to change before the organisation relies on the pathway.
- Evidence register with provenance and gaps
- SEDI findings and chain analysis
- Verdict, confidence basis, limitations
- Executive interpretation and remediation priorities
- Boundary
- One system, one pathway, one scenario. Connected systems are scoped separately.
- Indicative initial range
- £75,000 to £95,000 + VAT
You can discuss either starting point directly. A Review may recommend a full Assessment but does not commit you to one or determine its verdict.
Initial pricing remains subject to market validation. The proposal confirms the scope, outputs, fee, terms and timetable. Contact us to discuss scope and availability. We confirm delivery arrangements and a start date before accepting an engagement. Scope, fees and how an engagement runs.
A conclusion with a visible basis.
The assessment identifies the limiting parts of the intervention chain and explains the evidence and assumptions behind the result. Intervene retains responsibility for the conclusion. Clients can correct facts, challenge interpretation and provide further evidence. Issuance requires approval separate from the assessor's own judgement.
Signed SEDI result records are not a standard deliverable. They may be supplied only under an approved output-access arrangement, where the engagement terms provide for them and the delivery configuration supports them. Where they are supplied, a check establishes the integrity of the covered records, not the truth of the evidence. What verification establishes.
What happens next.
Tell us the system and the decision it supports. The first conversation is twenty minutes at no charge, and you receive a direct response within one to two working days. We do not pre-qualify by email questionnaire. Scope, delivery arrangements and a start date are confirmed in the proposal.
Can you stop it in time?
The assessment names the stage that limits timely intervention, so remediation can be prioritised.